As an example, last year my wife was contracted to work in the States of Guernsey. As a temporary resident I had no social security and medical benefits so I had to pay full medical expenses as a ''private citizen''. Going to the doctor for preventive medication prescriptions cost about £50 ($91), not much more than a visit to a general practitioner in Canberra before Medicare deductions. However, when it came to purchasing those prescriptions, again as a private citizen, I paid just £34 for three months' supply of medicines - about $60. In Australia I pay more than $120 monthly for the same medicines - at least six times as much.

If, in tiny Guernsey with barely 60,000 residents, medicines can be purchased cheaply even when they do not attract government subsidy, I can't see why we pay so much for ''subsidised'' medicines here.

If the government was seen to be doing something useful to reduce prescription costs substantially, maybe people would accept some changes to the current medical welfare system. However, when we are threatened with an extra co-payment because we must go to a medical practitioner at least twice yearly simply to renew prescriptions, this is not a ''price signal''; rather it is an insult to those who willingly pay the medicare levy and take responsibility in managing their health.

As a former minister for health and ageing, and having close connections with Britain, the Prime Minister would be well aware of the high price Australians pay for medicines. Despite this, he seems intent on maintaining high profits for the drug companies while telling ordinary people that it is largely their fault that medical costs are high.

Brian Cooke, Waramanga

Katy Gallagher will be forgiven by voters if, in the wake of Tony Abbott's rape and pillage of the state and territory budgets, she decides to forgo a few election promises.

But she and Labor will have a blot on their political character if she cancels cancer wards and other much-needed heath services and facilities and then continues, Stanhope-like, to plough on with the great Canberra folly, aka the Gungahlin tram.

She should now ignore Shane Rattenbury's entreaties and immediately wind up Capital Metro and save face and taxpayers' money on the greatest white elephant since the Futsal stadium. In return, perhaps a few more taxpayer dollars could go to Rattenbury for his concrete traffic island fetish.

W. A. Brown, Holt

I agree with the comments by R.S. Gilbert (Letters, May 21) that planning agencies should not have the role of deciding to protect existing businesses from competition of new businesses. However, the Giralang issue is not about competition, it is about a developer and a major supermarket chain putting a big development in a local centre, which is inconsistent with the Territory Plan.

Unfortunately, it would seem that some ACT developers believe that planning laws do not apply to them. Worse still, we have a planning minister who has used his powers to basically bypass what should have been a draft variation to the Territory Plan. The icing on the cake is that the economic impact assessment, which was never publicly notified by ACTPLA for comment with the rest of the development application, is now reported by The Canberra Times to be false. There needs to be a level playing field so rules apply to everyone. In this case, the economic impact is very much a planning issue.

J. Williams, Bruce

The ACT Supreme Court's decision to reject the Director of Public Prosecutions' application to have the just-completed Eastman Inquiry declared invalid (''Eastman inquiry: blow for prosecutors'', May 23, p1), was surely expected and welcomed by those concerned with the administration of justice - except the DPP.

What could possibly motivate the DPP to attempt to deny justice; especially in this significant case? Is the truth too much to cope with? And what, if any, accountability will follow? The system is sure to fail here.

As the court said: ''Ultimately, the question is: what is just? … To call a halt to the inquiry at this point [before Justice Martin presents his report] would be unconscionable.''

Peter Cormick, Deua River Valley, NSW

I confess that whenever I have read one of Frank O'Shea's articles, I am reminded of the words of the song Old Father Thames by Peter Dawson: ''There's some folk who always worry, and some folk who never care …''

His ''analysis'' of the budget (''Trying to make sense of all the budget song and dance'', Times2, May 21, p5) was no exception.

If only O'Shea would reveal to us how he manages to be so chirpy about a subject that is likely to impact on most people.

I trust that the answer has nothing to do with acquiring a taste for the Irish Guinness - because I don't drink.

Sam Nona, Burradoo, NSW

It is grossly incorrect, as Bob Salmond claims (Letters, May 23) that Sri Lankans held as a result of adverse ASIO assessments ''are free to leave''. All of these ethnic Tamils have been assessed as refugees, therefore even the Australian government accepts that they cannot be safely returned to Sri Lanka. Being free to leave to death or persecution is Catch-22 freedom.

The United Nations gets the right to comment by virtue of Australia being a signatory to its Refugee Convention.

If our compassionless political leaders had the courage of their convictions, they would withdraw from the convention instead of ignoring it. But they know they'd be pariahs on the world stage. The ASIO assessments are ridiculous in any case, as the Tamil Tigers have never represented any threat to Australia, no more than the IRA or ANC and probably less.

If ASIO can't imagine a way of managing the minimal risk the refugees pose, perhaps by monitoring them in the community as we do with paroled prisoners, then we need some brighter people in ASIO.

Peter Marshall, Captains Flat, NSW

I was 35 and living in Canberra in 1975 when Malcolm Fraser destroyed the Whitlam government I voted for and told me I had to tighten my belt for the sake of future economic Shangri-La.

Every Coalition government since has told me the same thing, austerity now in honour of a wonderful future that's always just out of reach. My belt gets tighter and tighter but the beautiful future never comes.

I am well into my 70s now and I can't wait any longer. I cannot pull my belt any tighter. I'm running out of time for Shangri-La. I need to live in a compassionate society now.

Sue Currie, Northcote, Vic

Outrage over the harshness and the broken promises in the budget is understandable. But it shows how much the electorate has been politically de-skilled that we seem unable to name what's going on for what it is: an attack on the social democracy set up after World War II to avoid repeating the disasters of the 1930s.

If you think we don't need this any more, consider the global financial crisis and the feral behaviour of Wall Street that brought America to its knees.

In the interests of clarity it might help to revive the terms left and right. Neither is easy to define in a constantly changing society, but it seems to me that the fundamental project of the right is to set up and maintain wealth and privilege, where the social democratic left seeks to make economics serve people rather than the other way around.

Why does the government attack service delivery rather than work on the revenue side of the budget? It's a choice, based on right-wing ideology, presented to us as the only possible response to a crisis economists don't seem sure even exists.

The conservative Liberal Party of Robert Menzies has been hijacked by zealots of the right. Rather than focus on broken promises, it would be better to ask ourselves how much closer we want to be pushed towards an Ayn Rand-style dystopia.

Michael Williams, Curtin

Owen Reid (Letters, May 22) states that the culture of entitlement is entrenched in Australia. I agree. Australians feel entitled to good, affordable and accessible hospitals, healthcare, schools and universities. Entitled to an age pension that affords them a decent life even when they need frequent visits to their doctors. Entitled to an adequately funded national broadcaster and to sensible action on climate change. Entitled to believe that those seeking refuge in our country will be treated justly and humanely.

Yes, Australians still feel entitled to a fair go for all.

The culture of entitlement is also clearly entrenched in the Coalition government. Its members feel entitled to do their ''heavy lifting'' by a brief freeze on rises to their very generous parliamentary pay and by imposing a paltry deficit tax on the wealthy. They feel entitled to attack the deficit with a vengeance except for any measure that might inflict even a light blow on the wealthy and on big business. They feel entitled to achieve their deficit-reduction goals by inflicting pain on the aged, the needy, the disabled, and university students. They feel entitled to take an axe to the public service, creating a huge number of unemployed without immediate access to any form of income support. And they feel entitled to break a multitude of promises after basing their entire election campaign on Julia Gillard's one broken promise.

Increasingly, Australians are feeling entitled to a better government.

B. Pearce, Kambah

Missing in the article ''Poor families pay most in the budget'', May 22) was any mention of ''single-income, dual-parent'' impact. Try doing the sums for a ''single-income (dual parent, but single-income family - yes, they do still exist) with school-age children'' household, particularly those in the thresholds to be hit by removal of Family Tax Benefit.

My quick sums estimate a hit on our household income of 12 per cent (after tax income) due to loss of FTB, and before other impacts like Medicare/PBS co-payments, fuel price rises, etc. So I'll be paying 12 per cent, and the PM and the Treasurer a measly 1 per cent on their order-of-magnitude higher incomes. Heavy lifting is going to give my family a hernia.

J. Coleman, Chisholm

It is a truth universally acknowledged that persons with surplus cash beyond everyday needs, must be in want of a good loan, so as to avail themselves of the benefits of negative gearing, in which tax deductible interest claimed is essentially paid for by workers whose remuneration isn't enough to generate such an opportunity.

This truth further generates the possibility that if taxation is increased, individuals owning a surplus will further benefit from negative gearing by being able to generate a larger deduction - paid from tax revenue - again contributed from earnings of those with insufficient resources to avail themselves of the benefit. Moreover, persons of exalted rank in business with power to grant themselves extraordinarily higher remuneration - independently of lower ranks - find themselves generating even larger surpluses, which can then be used to enhance gearing, also paid for, again, from the taxes of those not so placed or indeed, so fortunate.

Hence, our economic model is a natural outcome of a simple universal truth which drives our necessary efforts to sustain the system in which we live - a fine example of a self-organising system - as based on the revolutionary findings of Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine relating to the thermodynamics of irreversible processes - in which the vital issue is the continuing supply of energy to replenish the system - here, by ''willing workers''; this reminds us of the rider on a donkey holding a carrot out in front, just far enough that the donkey can't get it (Letters, May 17).

Ralph Sedgley, O'Connor

Many years ago, I was a talking to a senior nursing sister at the old Canberra Hospital. She vividly recalled working as a young trainee at a Sydney fever hospital long before the vaccine came in and going down to the mortuary three times in one night with the bodies of infants dead from whooping cough.

I was reminded of that story on reading ''More ACT parents saying 'no' to shots'' (May 21, p3). Apparently there are still many parents foolish or misguided enough (it can hardly be due to ignorance) to refuse their children the vital benefits of safe and lifesaving vaccines.

Parents whose children are fully immunised receive government money (more than $2000 per child). I have always thought that was wrong: surely it should be the parents' duty.

But wait: there is worse. Parents who refuse vaccination can get the money too: they just get a form signed by the doctor and they then get the money for NOT vaccinating the child. Crazy or what? Oh, apparently it would be ''discriminatory'' to withhold it! Of all the government handouts, this is surely one of the most indefensible.

Dr Alan N. Cowan, Yarralumla

Stasia Dabrowski (ACT citizen of the year 1996 and inaugural senior citizen of the year 1999) has been feeding the sick, hapless, homeless and helpless young people of Canberra every Friday night for 35 years.

I wonder if anyone has thought to ask any of them - by my calculations, there would have been over 500,000 mouths fed in the time - if they would prefer to go hungry rather than be served food that may not have been prepared according to best practice food hygiene standards.

Goodness knows how that young chancer, JC from Bethlehem would have gone if they had caught up with him claiming that he had fed thousands from a few loaves and two small fish. Go the food nazis!

Ann Darbyshire, Gunning, NSW

WHY SUBSIDISE NSW?

The loss of federal funding ("ACT health takes $240m hit", May 21, p1) would be more than offset if the ACT insisted on full reimbursement for the cost of treating NSW patients in the ACT health system.

Stephen Brown, Forrest

WE CAN'T SEE YOU, TONY

Tony Abbott's popularity has taken a dive recently. Isn't it time Peta Credlin dressed him in some high-visibility vests again? Those blue ties just don't seem nearly as convincing.

Maria Greene, Curtin

With the poor showing of the government in the latest opinion polls and Tony Abbott's approval rate slumping, there is someone out there smirking. And it's not Peter Costello. Her initials are J. G.

Philip Knopke, Kaleen

Message for Tony and Joe. Never mind chaps, Jesus loves you! Or does she? God help us.

Ted Tregillgas, Flynn

DELAYED OUTRAGE

I wonder where Maurine Wearne's confected outrage (Letters, May 22) over the ''trashing'' of the office of prime minister by cartoonists was when the same was directed at the previous prime minister, Julia Gillard. Surely it hasn't taken all this time for Wearne to find a pen for her outrage, or was it in fact OK for Gillard to be ridiculed when she held this high office?

L. Christie, Canberra City

A RICH LESSON

Thanks to Brian Schmidt for letting us know that there is no educational advantage in private school education - not yet, at least. And it makes perfect sense to this leftie that the rich pay more for the same basic product.

S.W. Davey, Torrens

CONFUSED ECONOMY

I'm confused about the state of Australia's economy. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer give every indication that it is in a bad way with Australia's AAA credit rating at risk. However, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, discussing refugee resettlement on ABC on May 20, told Ellen Fanning, ''It's about freedom from persecution, it's not about a ticket to a first-class economy.''

Ian Mathews, Garran

POSTPONE LIGHT RAIL

I agree entirely with Jeff Carl (Letters, May 21). In the current circumstances of the ACT budget, Katy Gallagher has every excuse to discontinue further expenditure on the light rail project until the budget is in better financial shape.

Beryl Richards, Curtin